Posted on 01/13/2018 12:07:05 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Ah, speculative execution. Man’s ever needing desire to get more done in less time resulted in a similar design for microprocessors. With the third wave maturing and on the brink of fading, speed is all that matters today. Information is available in the blink of an eye and requires similar speeds for decision making. Hesitate, and you’re done for. However, in the microprocessor case, this didn’t serve us too well. Speculative Execution on microprocessor didn’t account for what would happen should past usage trends not materialize. When we talk about every day processes, such as reading the news, this matters less. But move to sensitive processes and the problem is obvious. Now, we’ve got more on the Spectre and Meltdown patches w.r.t the iPhone 6 and it isn’t good.
(Excerpt) Read more at wccftech.com ...
thx
yes, but i dint know if the VM kept some things separate or not, looks like screwed either way
I don't think you can figure it out logically. My idea is this: The dynamic changes with VM. Less speculative look ahead when in the Kernel, .Would be some intensive test to prove or disprove however,.
later
thx, hence my question... i hope somebody runs some tests to see
I think the crux of it is that the virtualization layer does not block the bug.
But I need to find the references. I'm not clear yet on every detail.
Let me guess you’re one of these Apple fanatics? Did I hit too close to home? Nice job with the ad hominem attack snowflake.
thank you. because the VM runs through a virtualization layer i dint know it the attack could break through or not since i thought that was one of the primary reasons to run a VM
Where have you been for the last three weeks? Climbing Mount Everest? Your abysmal ignorance is not my problem. I’ve posted the explanation of a chemically depleted battery many times; I’m not going to do it again for you. Go back and read one of the previous posted explanations.
Apple’s $29 is more than competitive when compared with the Samsung Galaxy Note 8 battery replacement service at $94.95. Amazon sells the OEM battery for that model
by itself for $28.00. . . And you have to do the replacement yourself. No warranty.
Just more ignorance on your part.
You got it right.
Appes regular price was $79 for a replacement battery which is highway robbery. The Note 8 if it is that price as you mentioned is also ludicrous which is why I will probably get a phone that specifically allows a replaceable battery when/if my Galaxy S5 dies. I got an extended battery for mine for under $20 and it is practically 3 times the capacity of the OEM Samsung battery. A full charge will last me 2 1/2 days minimum before getting under 5% but then I could stretch it out another day if I was stranded somewhere in ultra power saver mode.
Oh, and I don’t have to bring my phone to one of these “geniuses” to change my battery since the S5 allows the user to do this themselves. The S6 they dumbed it down to follow Apple for some reason and it’s gone downhill since then. The S5 was their last best phone and they will have to pry my dead hands from it!
Is there anything like a VM on smartphones?
Hahaha.. +1
Please don’t mention punch cards, what a horror that must have been.
Virtualization has to assume the CPU is doing what it is supposed to do. These CPU bugs undercut that assumption, so all bets are off.
> Is there anything like a VM on smartphones?
I think the individual apps are "sandboxed", which is conceptually similar to virtualization. One difference is that in a sandbox you've generally got one application running in an encapsulated, isolated environment. In a VM you've got an entire operating system in an encapsulated, isolated environment.
But in both cases, the software relys on the CPU doing what it's supposed to do. So as above, all bets are off if the CPU itself is not providing the baseline level of isolation.
thx again. so these exploits CEP is low for the average user, yes?
If you understood the Spectre attack, you’d understand how it is in no way “Apple’s fault”. This attack is completely outside anything computer security has seen.
But no, just because it affects Apple computers (along with practically all other CPUs in the industry) you see it as an opportunity to insult people for colloquial comments many years past.
I get that, but can we finally lay to rest that Apple products are not immune to infection or subject to being compromised as many Apple people were bragging about in years past? I’m not touting Android over Apple with this, just that Apple people can no longer say they are protected 100%. Can we agree on this?
That dead horse was beaten into a dark stain years ago.
You admit it’s about comments made “years past”.
Nobody is contending 100% protection.
You’re the only one still trying to have that argument.
Give it a rest already.
As stands today: Apple does provide excellent protection. Most breaches require weapons-grade stupidity he11-bent on circumventing security. Most real vulnerabilities are found at the “laboratory conditions” stage (like Spectre) and fixes issued typically within days. It’s not 100%, as complex systems are rarely flawless, but it’s better than just about anything out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.